One question about this note: In fact, jj commit -m "msg" is an alias for jj new followed by jj describe -m "msg".
Shouldn't the order be reversed? First the working changeset is described, then "commited" with jj new?
One question about this note: In fact, jj commit -m "msg" is an alias for jj new followed by jj describe -m "msg".
Shouldn't the order be reversed? First the working changeset is described, then "commited" with jj new?